The Chairman Mao resembling, Monarchy hating, threat to Britain, Labour Party thread

[blandy]

7 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

Summer 2024 is what Greg Hands has hinted to Tory members apparently. And while what you say is true, the "current state of everything" I think is quite useful to predict what might happen. As that state has to improve (I'd say dramatically) to improve the Tory electoral prospects. 

Is enough going to improve (inflation / cost of living / NHS waiting lists / public sector dissatisfaction / a million other things) by a great enough amount, and quickly enough that moves the prevailing mood which just appears to be "time for a change".

That's before you consider that things could get worse for them, not better. Two months of partygate relevations across March and April at the Privileges Committee to remind people how much they didn't like Johnson, only to see him come back as leader after the disastrous May local elections? 

Lots of stuff could happen, but short of Russia declaring war on the UK or Labour having the biggest implosion of their lives I'm not sure I'd be betting on those changes being favourable for Sunak et al. 

Oh yeah, I agree completely. The Tory hope will be (I reckon) a May 2024 GE, by which time (they hope) inflation will be down, maybe the Ukraine war over, and various other massive negative factors diminished in the eyes of voters. I think it's a somewhat unlikely hope, but you never know. They're basically incompetent, ideologically riven, rotten to the core, fearful and flailing around for any kind of coherent plan to get out of the mess we're in.

For Labour's part, there's plenty of time for them to stuff things up, of course, and you can never rule out some sort of implosion, but I can remember posting yonks ago (before all these poll leads) that a kind of dam would break and it would likely be pretty irreversible (not in those words). At the time people seemed to take a different view, mostly. It was posted as much in hope perhaps, as any kind of skills on my part - maybe a mix of hope and experience. But yeah, at long last it's looking a lot better for those of us who desperately want and need the tories out, and given that's realistically only gonna come via Labour getting in, reasons to be cheerful.

[stewiek2]

3 hours ago, Jareth said:

With the SNP looking weak with Sturgeon's departure it could just be that Starmer's a very lucky man - if Labour were headed to a big win it could just be that some of those Scottish seats are now back in play, and the win could be even bigger.

I've heard that if her resignation isn't accepted that Sturgeon is going to push for a second resignation.

I'll get me coat...

Edited February 15, 2023 by stewiek2

[CVByrne]

Literally an open goal now for Starmer and Labour. Woohoo 

[ml1dch]

8 minutes ago, CVByrne said:

Literally an open goal now for Starmer and Labour. Woohoo 

[ml1dch]

Guess that might make a difference in the "would Corbyn win as an independent?" question.

[blandy]

46 minutes ago, ml1dch said:

Guess that might make a difference in the "would Corbyn win as an independent?" question.

Dunno, tbh. In that podcast thing he was asked directly and while he didn’t answer the question clearly (there’s a shock) he did sort of imply he wanted to carry on representing his constituents, ideally as a Labour MP.

[ml1dch]

24 minutes ago, blandy said:

Dunno, tbh. In that podcast thing he was asked directly and while he didn’t answer the question clearly (there’s a shock) he did sort of imply he wanted to carry on representing his constituents, ideally as a Labour MP.

True. And it's not as if Abbott has a one hundred percent track record in being right about stuff.

[ml1dch]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

Dunno, tbh. In that podcast thing he was asked directly and while he didn’t answer the question clearly (there’s a shock) he did sort of imply he wanted to carry on representing his constituents, ideally as a Labour MP.

Seems that is what she meant - but managed to mangle a bit.

"No intention of standing as an independent" in his mind = still standing for Labour. But as that's not happening, Independent Candidate it is.

[bickster]

Quote

[...]Jeremy Corbyn has accused Keir Starmer of a “flagrant attack” on democracy by barring him from standing as a Labour candidate, as allies said he was likely to run as an independent.

It comes as Starmer confirmed the former Labour leader would not be allowed to run for the party. In a statement on Twitter, Corbyn said party members and constituents were being denied their choice for representation.

Corbyn said members should be given the deciding power for who fought the next election. “Any attempt to block my candidacy is a denial of due process, and should be opposed by anybody who believes in the value of democracy,” he said.

“At a time when the government is overseeing the worst cost of living crisis in a generation, this is a divisive distraction from our overriding goal: to defeat the Conservative party at the next general election.”

The Guardian understands Corbyn is first likely to put himself forward for selection in his constituency Labour party (CLP) in Islington North where he still has a solid support base. That would mean the party’s governing national executive would need to formally block him from progressing.

His supporters have undertaken research in the seat in recent months that suggests he has a possibility of winning as an independent and commands a personal vote seven times higher than the average constituency MP.

Corbyn is said to be determined to first pursue the Labour nomination from the local party and a decision to stand as an independent would be very difficult for many of his former colleagues and supportive activists.[...]

Guardian

If Corbyn's overriding goal was to defeat the Conservative Party at the next election, he could just not stand. So it can't be THAT overriding 

Also, there is no denial of choice, they can vote for him as an independent candidate if he went down that route

What he's actually doing here must really cheer Starmer up no end. No more will the Tories be able to go on about the dangers of Corbyn and Labour. He's actually playing this how Starmer wants him to in the run up to selections and the next election, Starmer will be able to prove to the entire country that Corbyn is no longer associated with the Labour Party. Starmer refusing to allow Corbyn to stand, will only improve Starmer's standing with the wider populace. If Corbyn was capable of stepping outside his bubble, he'd see that. 

If Corbyn does go Independent, he will automatically be expelled from the Labour Party, he knows that

[ml1dch]

I expect this is going to be thrown back in his face a bit...

 

[blandy]

I also assume that if an MP has had the whip withdrawn "due process" means they cannot stand as an MP for that party in an election - it's certainly what happened with all the tories that Bunter kicked out for not agreeing with him about the wisdom of Brexit. Incidentally, Dianne Abbot said that "Corbyn was a Brexiter" on monday, but she thought he might have voted remain in the referendum, though she didn't know, "because that was Labour policy". Chinny reckon on the voting part.

[blandy]

1 minute ago, ml1dch said:

I expect this is going to be thrown back in his face a bit...

 

I'm sure it will. Imposing someone isn't the same as blocking someone for their STW support for Russia/blaming the West letter and Anti-semitism down-playing, though I guess that will get lost in the noise.

[OutByEaster?]

Its a pity I think; Starmer will further isolate a big chunk of Labour followers in eliminating Corbyn, it's going to be seen as another rejection of Labour principles by a great many and I think it'd have done him some good to allow a figure that's very popular with the half of the party he's less popular with back into the fold. 

Regardless, I don't think it's going to cost him votes in the election; the alternative to Starmer is horrific, but it might make him a pretty unpopular leader once he's in power - alienating half of your party in order to please the corporate's isn't necessarily a good plan in the long term.

His journey from hope-for-the-future to TINA candidate is pretty much complete.

 

[Demitri_C]

16 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

Its a pity I think; Starmer will further isolate a big chunk of Labour followers in eliminating Corbyn, it's going to be seen as another rejection of Labour principles by a great many and I think it'd have done him some good to allow a figure that's very popular with the half of the party he's less popular with back into the fold. 

Regardless, I don't think it's going to cost him votes in the election; the alternative to Starmer is horrific, but it might make him a pretty unpopular leader once he's in power - alienating half of your party in order to please the corporate's isn't necessarily a good plan in the long term.

His journey from hope-for-the-future to TINA candidate is pretty much complete.

 

I think both options are horrific to be honest just that the current Conservative party is more horrific 

[bickster]

18 minutes ago, OutByEaster? said:

Its a pity I think; Starmer will further isolate a big chunk of Labour followers in eliminating Corbyn, it's going to be seen as another rejection of Labour principles by a great many and I think it'd have done him some good to allow a figure that's very popular with the half of the party he's less popular with back into the fold. 

That's somewhat over egging the pudding imo.

[bickster]

1 hour ago, blandy said:

Dianne Abbot said that "Corbyn was a Brexiter" on monday, but she thought he might have voted remain in the referendum, though she didn't know, "because that was Labour policy". Chinny reckon on the voting part.

Can she really be that stupid? It wasn't Labour Policy, Labour specifically didn't have a policy on the referendum hence Labour MPs campaigning for both sides

[Jareth]

Considering Corbyn has been painted as a master antisemite who crashed Labour into the rocks at the last election - well you'd think he'd be irrelevant now. Only folks keeping him in the news is Labour, and that differentiation suits Starmer. Problem is the court case they're currently pressing against alledged leakers of the Forde report. It'll take place in the run up to the election, and in which all the racist and sexist crap thrown by the current Labour leadership structure will be aired - at the cost of millions and with no certainty they'll get anywhere and could bankrupt the party - let alone hand ammunition a plenty to the tories. Seems a huge own goal, but this has been Starmer's chosen strategy - perhaps they've been too vindictive. 

[blandy]

1 hour ago, bickster said:

Labour specifically didn't have a policy on the referendum

I must admit I thought they did, in 2016. I vaguely recall they were (albeit because of Corbyn's personal views) very lukewarm in Campaigning for remain. I could understand Corbyn not wanting to Campaign alongside the tory remain people on the same stages, but I am pretty sure their official policy at the time was "remain".

[bickster]

17 minutes ago, blandy said:

I must admit I thought they did, in 2016. I vaguely recall they were (albeit because of Corbyn's personal views) very lukewarm in Campaigning for remain. I could understand Corbyn not wanting to Campaign alongside the tory remain people on the same stages, but I am pretty sure their official policy at the time was "remain".

There was a whole Labour Leave organisation - Kate Hoey, Frank Field, Graham Stringer, Roger Godsiff.... They were allowed to campaign for Leave and the organisation was affiliated to the Labour Party

If Labour had a policy, there was certainly no compulsion on their MPs to campaign for that policy

[ml1dch]

13 minutes ago, bickster said:

If Labour had a policy, there was certainly no compulsion on their MPs to campaign for that policy

Although one would imagine that if there were any sort of policy it would be probably be seen as bad form for the leader of the party to not be (at least officially) behind it.